We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.

Civilization 6

I too was surprised by the hate shown hex. I played many wargames prior to civ so always thought that hex would work better. But yes, personal preference.

“do not ever attempt to convince another about anything by the use of facts or logic. A stupid man will not be swayed by facts. An intelligent man already knows those facts, and if he does not agree with you, he either has more accurate information than you do or his personal beliefs prevent him from accepting what you know to be true.”
? L.E. Modesitt Jr., Outcasts of Order

Having not played Civ 5 I can't say for certain, but I honestly don't see how hexes would be a bad thing (or an earth shakingly good thing either). The 1upt certainly sounds like it was implemented poorly, if not just a terrible idea to begin with.

As a person who owns Civ5 (well my brother does, I just play it sometimes.) I feel that the UPT thing wasn't necessarily a bad idea. It made the game more tactical, but wars being about positioning rather than brute strength, not a wholly terrible proposition. But the problem is that the AI seriously has no idea how to respond to ranged units. Or at least the barbarians don't. They just stand their while I snipe at them and load my chariot archers up with a bunch of experience.

To me, more problematic is national happiness and other things that limit city spam, the only thing I'm really any good at.

There are many issues with 1UPT but the main problem is that the AI is not able to handle it and it gets completely slaughtered in combat.

Click to expand...

AI can't handle stack warfare, either. AI in general needs improvement before Civ warfare is challenging. 1UPT is a matter of taste IMO. If you like tactical planning better than strategic then you tend to like 1UPT more. I personally would like to see a mix of both with a layered combat system. But the AI being bad at combat has little to do with 1UPT.

AI can't handle stack warfare, either. AI in general needs improvement before Civ warfare is challenging. 1UPT is a matter of taste IMO. If you like tactical planning better than strategic then you tend to like 1UPT more. I personally would like to see a mix of both with a layered combat system. But the AI being bad at combat has little to do with 1UPT.

Click to expand...

Layered combat system with a mix of both is Total War, which provides the opportunity for the AI to function poorly at the strategic and tactical levels.

A civ's or leader's uniquenesses should be available right at the start or very early in the game and not depend on the rigth conditions.
In civ4 there are several UUs and UBs which simply come too late. Russian research institute, American mall, German panzer, etc.
In civ5, it's really worse.
Most UUs never see a fight, because of the extreme warmonger penalty.
The UAs forces the player to follow a certain path or it's totally useless (Austia, Venice, Mongols).
Other uniquenesses, like a tile improvement should not depend on map and terrain type.
(No mountains near hills -> Incan terrace is useless, no marsh or floodplains -> no Dutch polder)

Civ has always been about 1 city tile + 2 or 3 rings around it.
What if the city center tile will be, let's say, 7 hexes with 2 or 3 rings around it,
so there will be tiles in the city and outside the city?

A civ's or leader's uniquenesses should be available right at the start or very early in the game and not depend on the rigth conditions.
In civ4 there are several UUs and UBs which simply come too late. Russian research institute, American mall, German panzer, etc.
In civ5, it's really worse.
Most UUs never see a fight, because of the extreme warmonger penalty.
The UAs forces the player to follow a certain path or it's totally useless (Austia, Venice, Mongols).
Other uniquenesses, like a tile improvement should not depend on map and terrain type.
(No mountains near hills -> Incan terrace is useless, no marsh or floodplains -> no Dutch polder)

Click to expand...

Some of the late-UUness in Civ IV is due to a desire to have them spread throughout the timeline--and let there be some interest in advanced starts.

Civ has always been about 1 city tile + 2 or 3 rings around it.
What if the city center tile will be, let's say, 7 hexes with 2 or 3 rings around it,
so there will be tiles in the city and outside the city?

Click to expand...

There are 21 tiles in a square-tile BFC (center+8 in 1st ring + 12 in second ring). There are 19 tiles in a hex-tile BFH (center + 6 in 1st ring + 12 in second ring). Not a big deal.

A layered approach to combat would mean switching to a tactical screen to do the actual combat. Doable, but a PITA for some (especially multiplayer games.) It was done in MOO II.

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

Well.. 1 upt is not that good when you have a lot of units. Having a lot of units will not let you have all your units go at war all at once especially the melee units. Ranged units could suffer less from 1upt because you can have more ranged units in 1upt attack than melee units since melee units cant attack from far. Larger ranged units can be most likely to attack with larger armies in 1 upt. Stacks don't have this problem and can make a lot of units.

Damn. I consider myself a kind of pessimistic guy. I took it for granted that the civ franchise was screwed since civ 5. However this civ online thing... I finally clicked on it... only to be greeted by a side boob of what must be Cleopatra or her cousin or something. Looked at the screenshots... it seems way worse than everything I could have imagined. It's going downhill, very fast. Not that I dislike side boobs, it's just we're talking about Civ goddamnit!

I'll try to do as suggested by Funky and cope with it.

Click to expand...

HAHAHA! Oh man, I really thought my satirical illustrations were over the top when I made them back in 2010...

As we all know, Activision stole my idea for the Giant Mutant Missile Mech Squid:

Then I tried to give the Marine unit a more ...um... "modern" look :

And what do you know...! Well it's not a marine unit, but fan service is always fan service.

I too was surprised by the hate shown hex. I played many wargames prior to civ so always thought that hex would work better. But yes, personal preference.

Click to expand...

Personal preference may play a role. Yet I would argue that hexes are ultimately not suitable for Civ. For a tactical game, give me hexes all the way. But the Civ map is not a battlefield, it's a friggin' planet! And planets have never been structured by hexes. Quite the contrary, our main point of reference are the four/eight cardinal points, which presuppose squares.

One reason I could not get immersed in Civ5 (admittedly a rather minor one compared to the vast numbers of glaring flaws in the game) is that I didn't feel like I was exploring a world, but was strolling across a battlefield.

blitzkrieg1980 said:

AI can't handle stack warfare, either. AI in general needs improvement before Civ warfare is challenging. 1UPT is a matter of taste IMO. If you like tactical planning better than strategic then you tend to like 1UPT more. I personally would like to see a mix of both with a layered combat system. But the AI being bad at combat has little to do with 1UPT.

Click to expand...

I disagree. While the Civ4 AI is far from perfect, it is vastly better that of Civ5. Or let's say, the AI itself may not be better, but the system is apparently much easier for it to compute, so it can actually pose serious threats. In Civ5 on the other hand, it is basically impossible to lose a war if you have just the slightest clue what you are doing.

I see what you're saying. But I rarely see the AI as a serious threat in Civ4 if ever. But the 1upt would be harder for an AI to handle. Still the AI warring needs to be overhauled in general especially if a tiered combat system were added like I suggested above.

A civ's or leader's uniquenesses should be available right at the start or very early in the game and not depend on the rigth conditions.
In civ4 there are several UUs and UBs which simply come too late. Russian research institute, American mall, German panzer, etc.
In civ5, it's really worse.
Most UUs never see a fight, because of the extreme warmonger penalty.
The UAs forces the player to follow a certain path or it's totally useless (Austia, Venice, Mongols).
Other uniquenesses, like a tile improvement should not depend on map and terrain type.
(No mountains near hills -> Incan terrace is useless, no marsh or floodplains -> no Dutch polder)

Civ has always been about 1 city tile + 2 or 3 rings around it.
What if the city center tile will be, let's say, 7 hexes with 2 or 3 rings around it,
so there will be tiles in the city and outside the city?

Click to expand...

Having UU/UB for every Civ at or near the beginning of the game is problematic. For civs that existed in the ancient era it is easy to assimilate some ancient unit or building for that Civ. But for relatively modern civs how would you go about giving them an ancient UU/UB? Take the U.S.A. as an example, the marine is the UU. Considering that America exist in a modern time frame how would you give America an ancient starting unit. Rl civs in the ancient era have ancient UU. Civs on the classical era have classic UU. Renaissance era civs have renaissance UU. Industrial era have appropriate era UU, and the same for modern era. The way civ applies UU/UB to each civ is in accordance with their RL time frame.

I understand to have a UU + UB for a civ in the right era, but, after playing civ5 BNW for a month now,
I've noticed I only like to play as the Aztecs, Shoshone and less the Celts.
Egypt can be good too, but the civ5 AIs are heavily focused on wonder building.
All the other civ UAbilities, UBuildings, UImprovements or UUnits are average to bad.

Almost all civ4 leaders with a late UB + UU have great trait combos, so there's some compensation.
In civ5 when Austria or Venice annex/puppet a city-state, it's gone.
You can't revive/liberate them and that's bad when you're playing Greece or Siam.
You could destroy civs which are a danger to your UA, but that means that
every other civ will hate you and trade deals will be impossible to make, unlike in civ4.

I do remember the lead civ5 designer saying : "Civ5 is about making interesting decisions."
The problem is, 9 out 10 times your opening decisions are the same.
Playing with raging barbarians + the Honor opener policy means culture points when killing them.
Pottery is almost always the first tech to start with.
And Monarchy in the Tradition policy tree is a must have to get 50% more gold income and reduce unhappiness in your capital with 50%.
The 'sacred path 'pantheon is by far the best pantheon, it gives +1 culture from jungle tiles and cities won't generate that amount culture through the whole game.
Some stuff is too good while others are weak to useless (buying landsknechts in the commerce policy tree).

My ideal version of Civ6 would be 40% Civ4, 25% Civ5, 10% Civ1-3 and 25% new stuff.

While Civ5 on the whole is inferior to its predecessor, I found that to my surprise the cultural and religion mechanics are actually better. Making civics/social policies dependent culture instead of technology was simply brilliant, as is making culture expand from tile to tile or hex as it were instead of ring wise. That way culture is actually important in other situations than border cities or the very beginning of a new city. Also 5's religion system sure beats 4's Hindu-Buddhist blocs for all eternity. Oh if only they hadn't shoved in 1UPT with no regard to how it fits in, 5 might actually be slightly superior to its predecessor.

Forget the Alamo, remember Fort Sumter! Down with the traitor, up with the star!

"I'd recommend using worldbuilder to cheat." -MagisterCultuum
"You're an incompetent jerk with no capacity for self-reflection, and an unbearable burden on any conversation. [...] At this point I mainly feel sorry for the people in your life who have to deal with your condition." -BobCW

My ideal version of Civ6 would be 40% Civ4, 25% Civ5, 10% Civ1-3 and 25% new stuff.

Click to expand...

My ideal version would be 0% Civ5 for sure. Seriously, I find literally every single mechanic of Civ5 worse than Civ4. A very small number of them may actually be decent ideas, but then they were terribly implemented (like natural wonders or naturally growing borders). The rest are downright awful decisions that I never want to see in a civ game again. Of course I know that my wish won't come to pass...